Mahlangu v Tee-Eff Supermarket (J130/01) [2001] ZALC 73 (22 May 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] ZALC 73
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- E Revelas
- Case number
- J130/01
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- E Revelas
- Case number
- J130/01
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with its order to provide proof of service of the recission application on the CCMA. The respondent's opposition was not substantiated by evidence of proper procedural compliance. Given the applicant's prolonged wait to enforce the award and the respondent's non-compliance, the court determined that the arbitration award should be made an order of court. The court emphasized that employers often delay compliance with awards and oppose enforcement at the last minute, but such conduct will not be condoned absent good cause and procedural compliance.
Court disposition
The application to make the arbitration award an order of court is granted.
Orders
- The arbitration award dated 20 November 2000 issued by Commissioner L Dreyer is made an order of court.
02
Material facts
Parties
B A Mahlangu
ApplicantTee-Eff Supermarket
Respondent Counsel: Mr Malebane03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the arbitration award in favour of the applicant should be made an order of court.
- 02
Whether the respondent's opposition and purported application for recission justify delaying enforcement of the award.
- 03
Whether the respondent complied with the court's directive to provide proof of service of the recission application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought to have the arbitration award dated 20 November 2000 made an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that the respondent had failed to comply with the award and had delayed enforcement without valid reason.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by Mr Malebane, opposed the application on the basis that he was unaware of the arbitration proceedings and intended to apply for recission of the award. He claimed to have filed a recission application but could not provide proof of service on the CCMA as required by the court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, section 158(1)(c)
A party seeking to oppose enforcement of an arbitration award must show good cause and comply with procedural requirements, including proof of service of any recission application.
- 02
Labour Court practice
Non-compliance with a court order regarding procedural steps may result in default enforcement of an arbitration award.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with its order to provide proof of service of the recission application on the CCMA. The respondent's opposition was not substantiated by evidence of proper procedural compliance. Given the applicant's prolonged wait to enforce the award and the respondent's non-compliance, the court determined that the arbitration award should be made an order of court. The court emphasized that employers often delay compliance with awards and oppose enforcement at the last minute, but such conduct will not be condoned absent good cause and procedural compliance.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted a prevalent tendency among employers to delay compliance with arbitration awards and to oppose enforcement at the last minute, which undermines the effectiveness of the dispute resolution process.
- Assistance may be given to respondents who show genuine intent and good cause for recission, but procedural compliance is mandatory.
Court disposition
The application to make the arbitration award an order of court is granted.
- The arbitration award dated 20 November 2000 issued by Commissioner L Dreyer is made an order of court.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court
Judgment
JUDGMENT
1 J130/01/HVR
Sneller Verbatim/HvR
IN THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J130/01
2001-05-22
In the matter between
B A MAHLANGU Applicant
and
TEE-EFF SUPERMARKET Respondent
________________
J U D G M E
N T
REVELAS J:
The applicant applied in terms of section 158(1)(c) of Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (âthe Actâ) for an arbitration award made in his favour, dated 20 November 2000, to be made an order of court.
The matter was opposed by the respondent.
Mr Malebane appeared on behalf of the respondent. He stated that he wished to oppose the application on the basis that he was not aware of the arbitration proceedings and that he wished to bring an application for the recission of the award.
It has been noted by judges of the Labour Court that there is a tendency which is prevalent particularly amongst employers, not to comply with awards and to oppose matters at the last minute.
This court would assist such a respondent if it is apparent from the evidence that the respondent indeed intended to bring in application for recission and show good cause.
At the time the application in terms of Section 158 (1)(c) was opposed by the respondent, Mr Malebane indicated that he had applied for recission of the matter but could not provide proof thereof. I then made an order to the effect that should the respondent fail to provide proof of service of the application for recission on 8 May 2001, the matter would proceed by way of default.
On 4 May 2001 Mr Malebane, on behalf of the respondent, filed an application for recission. There is, however, no proof of service of this award on the Commission of Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (âthe CCMAâ), in other words there is no proof that the CCMA received the application. The respondent therefore did not comply with the court order.
Since there has been non-compliance with the court order and the applicant has waited a considerable period to enforce the award in his favour, I make the following order:
The award dated 20 November 2000 issued by Commissioner L Dreyer is made an order of court. ___ E. Revelas
This court would assist such a respondent if it is apparent from the evidence that the respondent indeed intended to bring in application for recission and show good cause.
At the time the application in terms of Section 158 (1)(c) was opposed by the respondent, Mr Malebane indicated that he had applied for recission of the matter but could not provide proof thereof. I then made an order to the effect that should the respondent fail to provide proof of service of the application for recission on 8 May 2001, the matter would proceed by way of default.
On 4 May 2001 Mr Malebane, on behalf of the respondent, filed an application for recission. There is, however, no proof of service of this award on the Commission of Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (âthe CCMAâ), in other words there is no proof that the CCMA received the application. The respondent therefore did not comply with the court order.
Since there has been non-compliance with the court order and the applicant has waited a considerable period to enforce the award in his favour, I make the following order:
The award dated 20 November 2000 issued by Commissioner L Dreyer is made an order of court.
___
E. Revelas
1
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.